> However, Randy and I disagree on certain scientific points and we can not
> reach an agreement. This is exactly the reason why we added the disclaimer.
> His articles are not peer reviewed and they have not been edited the way
> other articles in the journal are edited. The articles are Randy's
> interpretation of data and he does not wish to accept some of my suggested
> edits to modify some statements.
>

This is a first for me. Mostly editors correct grammar and readability not
the science. In essence what you are saying is that you "peer review"
submissions for scientific accuracy and correct them to agree with your
interpretation. Talk about bad science. Plus you conflate ABJ into a purely
scientific journal which it is not. And you have declared yourself as the
fount of scientific truth.

If you do not like the science write a rebuttal, not a weasel worded
disclaimer. We write rebuttals every day on this list which is what makes
it great. Try the same at ABJ.

I admire Randy's patience and forbearance in the face of this arrogance.

BTW, way back when I was the editor of our State Newsletter both Kim and
the editor of the ABJ read it. I know because I would get requests from Kim
to use an article while the ABJ would just steal them and print them
without attribution.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html